I agree with the sentiment that Nintendo should sell the console for cheap to expand the user base, that definetly makes sense, I was just trying to figure out what was so.. like offensive... about a company making money on their consoles... But what dylan said is more along the lines of what I was thinking... I bought 10 games for my DS since I bought the system at the start of the summer, it's a god damned addiciton I tell you (In the past I've purchased ~5 games per system-life). All because the games are cheap, I would have still bought my Lite even if it cost me an additional $20, but those $30 and less games... it's so hard to resist! For instance, Sonic Rush just hit $14.99 on Amazon and I'm having a hard time convincing my self to not buy it!
How much were NES games when they first came out? 49.99? Thats what i remember but that was soo long ago, my memory may be fuzzy.
I thought you'd like this since you don't think Wii is "next-generation"... http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=18957 "The only true next-gen console out there is the Wii. Everything else is just a video card and processor upgrade," McGee concluded.
I don't remember offhand, but game prices have fluctuated depending on the situation. I think some Genesis, SNES and N64 games retailed for far more than $50-$60 (thanks to the costs of the cartridges and the smaller market at the time). I'm just not sure about what the NES games retailed for (probably varied a lot). Actually, I have been wrong by not calling the Wii a next-gen console. In terms of hardware and stuff like that, it definitely isn't next-gen; as far as innovation and bringing something new to games, it definitely is next-gen (wouldn't be surprised if the PS4/720 had a similar control scheme if it takes off). I love what Nintendo is doing as far as trying to make games more fun and interesting, as well as broadening the market. I just don't like some of their other decisions (especially since they might clash with the decisions I like).
Just because it has become the tactic of late to sell your systems as massive loss doesn't mean it is the 'right' way of doing it now. Not too mention IMO that sort of thing hurts the industry far more than it helps it.
Slightly off topic but is it confirmed that smash brothers will only have 1 online player at a time per wii?
Agreed! Though I don't mind if my video games still look like video games (rather than going for realism) when they look like this...!
As I mentioned earlier, Nintendo doesn't have to take massive losses. Sony and MS probably lose like $150-$200 or more on their consoles. If Nintendo lost that much money on the Wii, it would have to be priced at $.99 or something. However, they could take maybe a $50 loss and price it at around $100-$150 or so (especially since they're taking a profit to begin with most likely). That, along with the new approach to gaming, seems like a nice way to bring in non-gamers. How has selling consoles for a loss hurt the industry? Ever since this practice has been introduced, the industry has seen insane growth AFAIK. A coincidence?
I have a 360, a Gamecube, and a DS (or rather my kids have them, LOL!). The DS gets played more than any of the others put together, and I have an HDTV for the 360. It's the games. It's the games. It's the games!
Age might be a factor, but if I had a DS, 360, and GC, I'd probably play the DS the most too (might change later on in the 360's life though). And I'm almost 20. Now if I had a PS2...
PS1/N64. Maybe a little better. The games for it are awesome though (only PS2 and GBA are really comparable IMO as far as somewhat recent systems go).
Not everything is related to price. I understand that, in a simple world, lower price = more demand and a higher install base. However, in the real world, when you analyze pricing from a brand equity position, starting out with a low price may actually damage Nintendo's brand (at least in the short-term). With a price point of $170, consumers may perceive the Wii to be an inferior product based on the vast price difference and thus refuse to buy. Pricing does send signals to consumers.
let me just say for starters the whole "taking losses" on consoles is something that was introduced by sony / ms, it's been noted that nintendo has made a profit on every console they've ever made and I'm fairly certain this one will be more of the same. I'm also pretty certain it will be priced $199.99, if I'm wrong, sue me. the thing is, it makes sense cus they realize most people are going to buy at least 1-2 games and another controller or so. I'm guessing most people at the end of the day will spend at least 300-350 when they buy their wii, which is still substantially cheaper than a ps3 or xbox360. nintendo is going to be filthy rich. filthy, rich.
But they don't have to. That's the point. It makes no sense to do it if it is not necessary. Heck, there is even something to the point that pricing it too cheap degrades the brand in the consumer's eyes. Nintendo can still say they are doing something different and it will be true. They can still say they are trying to use this approach to attract non-gamers and it will be true. And, thanks to 360's and PS3's cost, they can sell at a profit and still be much cheaper than the alternatives. There is no need to do the opposite...just because it is the hole that MS and Sony have dug for themselves. IMO the only thing that could halt that growth and stop it in its tracks is the cost of doing business/gaming just becoming too high. It is the constant drive to make up that loss from the systems that effects every other aspect of the business. Price of games, microtransactions, accessories, online play, in-game advertising, etc. It is a law for MS/Sony's method of business that you make up the losses of the system with the games...and just about everything else. Eventually that struggle will get out of hand. And so, too, will the prices. It may have already happened, with $400 360s and of course we know about the PS3. And a good - very large - portion of the customer base still just views the industry as a video game industry. If that drive continues, you could price yourself right out of their want range. And that could be a big, big problem.
I think that depends on your definition of necessary; is it necessary to keep consoles at prices under $400 (see eBay prices from last year)? Would a $300-$400 PS3 be "too cheap" for someone wanting a Blu-ray player? That way I see it, charging $200 or more for the Wii pushes it out of the "mass-market" price (most consoles sold were sold at less than $200 IIRC, and those were to gamers). I know there are a lot of people that aren't willing to pay ~$200 for the Wii due to the specs, but would consider doing so for $150 or less (myself included...though I'm also waiting on reviews). I think pushing it as a mass-market device but not giving it a mass-market price could be a mistake (especially when it is overpriced to begin with). Besides, the 360 and PS3 won't be at their price tags forever. Unless Nintendo is willing to price cut the already-"affordable" Wii shortly after launch, they'll probably be facing a $200/$300 360 combo early next year, which looks pretty good if the Wii is priced at $200 or more (as opposed to say $150 or less). I don't really see how that is a result of losing money on consoles. Just normal progression of technology in consoles (which Nintendo proved that you could have in consoles and still make a profit on). If I'm not mistaken, game prices, in-game advertising, and microtransactions are ways to offset higher development costs for games, not to help Sony/Microsoft get back more money that they lost on their consoles (though they might get a small piece of the pie). Only MS charges for online play. Accessories have always been badly priced AFAIK (though memory cards appear to be a problem no longer). That's a valid concern, although I'm not sure if it is directly due to losing money on consoles (more so MS and Sony trying to put too much tech into these consoles than consumers might prefer to pay for). Taking out Blu-ray and/or the HDDs in both consoles would result in sub-$400 prices most likely (though MS and Sony would still be losing a lot of money on them). Besides, this more or less only applies to US/NA. AFAIK, system prices for Europe and Japan are more or less the same or even cheaper than previous generations (PS3 will launch at just barely more than the PS2 in some countries). And that makes up 2/3 (and maybe more in the future) of the industry.
Just because someone bought a 360 for $1000 doesn't mean it should be $1000. Nor does it mean it will sell to the mass market if MS actually had made it $1000. As far as the Wii goes, selling at a loss is unneccessary if it will still sell at a profit and will still get their message across. I hadn't seen anyone throw around $150 as an expected price until it started to become obvious Nintendo would keep the system in the $200-250 range. Most people expect that. In addition, the very fact that the competition is priced what it is makes it that much more reasonable. So, again, if their goals remain intact, and their price will seem reasonable to the majority, why change it? Conversely, there are some people out there that say $600 is a steal for the PS3. (Like...say....Ken Kutagari. ;P ) That they expected it to be even more. So should they? If they can charge 800 - and still sell at a loss - to meet the expectations of a portion of the customer base, by your logic, they should go ahead and do it. But they don't, because it isn't necessary, and is counter-productive to their goals. And I would say you are in the minority here. Particularly when the average consumer doesn't care about CPU and GPU and cores and what not, but just looks at the shelf and sees 400,500,600 bucks and has been hearing all about the Wii controller. At which time, I'm sure everyone (MS, Sony, Nintendo) will make their adjustments accordingly. Which is pretty much exactly my point. All that tech costs more and more, particularly the more 'cutting edge' that it is, raising the prices of the systems yet still creating bigger losses for Sony/MS...etc. etc. IMO that is a bad thing for everyone involved. And sooner or later, for the average consumer, that price is going to just be too high.
